From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Profiling support? Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:19:55 +0100 Message-ID: <874n45brs4.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87d2itc2zv.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <878uthbtjg.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <20140211151451.GA15032@serenity.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Duy Nguyen , Git Mailing List To: John Keeping X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Feb 11 16:20:04 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WDF7x-0004GB-Cj for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:20:02 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751582AbaBKPT5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:19:57 -0500 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:52745 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750909AbaBKPT5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:19:57 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51786 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WDF7r-0003Ry-NV; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:19:55 -0500 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5C17CE0510; Tue, 11 Feb 2014 16:19:55 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: <20140211151451.GA15032@serenity.lan> (John Keeping's message of "Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:14:52 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: John Keeping writes: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:41:55PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: >> Duy Nguyen writes: >> >> > Would perf help? No changes required, and almost no overhead, I think. >> >> Not useful. It would be probably nice for nailing down the performance >> gains when the work is finished so that future regressions will be >> noticeable. It's reasonable easy to create a test case that will take >> hours with the current git-blame and would finish in seconds with the >> improved one. >> >> But it's not useful at all for figuring out the hotspots within the >> git-blame binary. > > I would have thought the annotation described at [1] is exactly what > you're looking for, isn't it? > > Alternatively, I've had some success with callgrind and kCachegrind in > the past. > > [1] > https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Tutorial#Source_level_analysis_with_perf_annotate Misunderstanding on my part. I thought this was about the "make perf" Makefile target. I'll have to take a look at what the perf utility does. Thanks for the clarification. -- David Kastrup